When he said President Obama had "added almost as much to the federal debt as all the prior presidents combined." Not even close.
When he resurrected "death panels." That was called "one of the biggest whoppers of the night."

By the way, I think that we (any of us still playing World of Warcraft) should start a guild called 'Off-topic'. We could then proceed to constantly flood /2 with political discourse. Maybe we flip a coin to pick factions, and I or Diurdi could GM 'Off Topic Republicans' and Wells could lead 'Off Topic Democrats' and we could spend our time in PvP zones whooping the shit out of each other.

When he said President Obama had "added almost as much to the federal debt as all the prior presidents combined." Not even close.
When he resurrected "death panels." That was called "one of the biggest whoppers of the night."

When he said President Obama had "added almost as much to the federal debt as all the prior presidents combined." Not even close.
When he resurrected "death panels." That was called "one of the biggest whoppers of the night."

There are a lot more than that if you expand the definition to be misleading or to be counter to what he has done and implied while governor and/or while campaigning. And some of these things he said multiple times.

You also left out the "government takeover of healthcare". The 2010 Lie of the Year.

You could probably argue that Romney lied or clearly misled more than once every single minute that he spoke.

When he said that President Obama had "cut Medicare by $716 billion to pay for Obamacare." Obama didn't.

Furthermore, as we explained in detail in our story “Medicare’s ‘Piggy Bank,’ “ Medicare doesn’t have $716 billion sitting around that could be “raided.” The president can’t take money out of the trust fund — which had $244.2 billion at the end of 2011. Medicare holds its trust fund bonds and can cash them in as it needs to cover whatever isn’t paid by current payroll taxes. The health care law even increases the amount of tax revenue that will flow into the trust fund by imposing a 0.9 percent Medicare surcharge on certain high-income individuals.

If Part A doesn’t need to spend income it receives from payroll taxes immediately, Treasury issues Medicare a bond and the amount is credited to Medicare’s Part A trust fund. When Medicare wants to cash that bond, Treasury has to pay it, even if Treasury already spent the original money on something else.

And that’s where Romney has a point. The health care law counts those savings as money that can also cover other aspects of the law. But both the Congressional Budget Office and Medicare’s chief actuary have said that in practice, the $716 billion savings can’t cover two things at once.

So, he didn't cut it. He just cut back on the (already low) reimbursements in order to 'double spend' it on Obamacare.

Is that like how we're going to use 1/2 the money we 'save' from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars to (LOL) pay down the debt, and 'invest the other 1/2 in America'?

My roommate said he wished he could pull that trick off with his student loans... You know, take the loan money he's 'saving' by not going to school and using 1/2 to pay down his student loan debt, and the other half to 'invest' in a new car?

We didn't we think of that? We should just take out a $16 trillion dollar loan to pay off the national debt!

---------- Post added 2012-10-04 at 02:30 PM ----------

And... If we 'care' about our seniors so much, why not also mention that a greater number of doctors are turning away Medicare patients due to the current reimbursement levels. With millions more people having traditional 'insurance', and without any real growth in doctors per capita, how many more will simply stop seeing/caring for our seniors? In many cases, those left out in the cold will be the ones most needing the care, too.

So, he didn't cut it. He just cut back on the (already low) reimbursements in order to 'double spend' it on Obamacare.

Is that like how we're going to use 1/2 the money we 'save' from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars to (LOL) pay down the debt, and 'invest the other 1/2 in America'?

My roommate said he wished he could pull that trick off with his student loans... You know, take the loan money he's 'saving' by not going to school and using 1/2 to pay down his student loan debt, and the other half to 'invest' in a new car?

We didn't we think of that? We should just take out a $16 trillion dollar loan to pay off the national debt!

I'm having trouble following your complaint. If billions of dollars were budgeted annually and being spent but are no longer needed to be spent, then spending half of it on desperately needed reinvestment and letting the other half go unspent to reduce the deficit seems like a balanced course of action to me. You make some progress on deficit reduction while building up some of the things you need.

I'm tall, and thin, with a bright red head but strike me once and I'm black instead...

Posts

1,451

Yay! An arbitrary "the guy I don't like tells a bunch of lies" game. My turn...

#1: Obama: “I’ve Proposed A Specific $4 Trillion Deficit Reduction Plan.”"By Obama’s math, you have nearly $3.8 trillion in spending cuts, compared to $1.5 trillion in tax increases (letting the Bush tax cuts expire for high-income Americans). That’s how he claims $1 of tax increases for every $2.50 of spending cuts. But virtually no serious budget analyst agreed with this accounting. Obama’s $4 trillion figure, for instance, includes counting some $1 trillion in cuts reached a year ago in budget negotiations with Congress. So no matter who is the president, the savings are already in the bank. (The Obama campaign notes that the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the president’s budget would reduce the deficit by $3.5 trillion over 10 years. The national debt, as a percentage of the gross domestic product, would rise from 73 percent to 76 percent in that period.)"

#2: Obama: “I have said that for incomes over $250,000 a year, that we should go back to the rates that we had when Bill Clinton was president, when we created 23 million new jobs, went from deficit to surplus, and created a whole lot of millionaires to boot.”"But those making over $250,000 a year would actually pay more than they did under Clinton due to new taxes imposed on upper-income people to pay for the health care law.”

#3: Obama: “The problem is that because the voucher wouldn’t necessarily keep up with health care inflation, it was estimated that this would cost the average senior about $6,000 a year. Now, in fairness, what Governor Romney has now said is he’ll maintain traditional Medicare alongside it .”"Obama acknowledged that the GOP Medicare plan, authored by Romney running mate Paul Ryan, has been changed. But he still clung to an outdated estimate of an earlier version of the plan, claiming it will cost seniors an extra $6,000 a year."

#4: Obama: “And that’s why independent studies looking at this said the only way to meet Governor Romney’s pledge of not reducing the deficit — or — or — or not adding to the deficit, is by burdening middle-class families. The average middle-class family with children would pay about $2,000 more.”"Most of the conservative studies argue that Romney’s tax plan would stimulate economic growth, generating additional tax revenue without shifting any of the tax burden to the middle class."

#5: OBAMA: “The fact of the matter is that when Obamacare is fully implemented, we are going to be in a position to show that costs are going down. Over the last two years, health care premiums have gone up — it is true — but they have gone up slower than any time in the last 50 years. We are already seeing progress.” "Obama tried to attribute a 50-year decline in health costs to the health-care law, but much of it has not yet been implemented. Most economists say the slowdown is more likely because of the lousy economy.

#6: Obama: “I think it’s important for us to develop new sources of energy here in America, that we change our tax code to make sure that we’re helping small businesses and companies that are investing here in the United States, that we take some of the money that we’re saving as we wind down two wars to rebuild America and that we reduce our deficit in a balanced way that allows us to make these critical investments.”"This oft-repeated claim is based on a fiscal fiction. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were paid for mostly with borrowed money, so stopping them doesn’t create a new pool of available cash that can be used for something else, like rebuilding America.

#7: Obama: “Over The Last 30 Months, We’ve Seen 5 Million Jobs In The Private Sector Created.”“After the economy plummeted in late 2007 and throughout 2009, the United States has gained 4.6 million private-sector jobs since the labor market bottomed in February 2010 – or 5.1 million under preliminary revisions released last week that are not part of the official tally by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Still, that’s weak by historical standards. Under President George W. Bush, the private sector also added 5 million jobs in the 30 months after employment hit bottom following the 2001 downturn, and the pace of private-sector gains in the previous two recoveries was far stronger.”

#8: OBAMA: “The approach that Governor Romney’s talking about is the same sales pitch that was made in 2001 and 2003, and we ended up with the slowest job growth in 50 years, we ended up moving from surplus to deficits, and it all culminated in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.""As we have previously demonstrated, Obama comes in either last, second-to-last or in the bottom half among presidents since the Great Depression, depending on which way you look at the numbers. The President also suggested that Romney would adopt the same policies as the bush administration -cut taxes and roll back regulation-that led to the economic crisis, which is a claim that earned him Three Pinocchios this week."

#9: Obama: “Social Security is structurally sound. It’s going to have to be tweaked the way it was by Ronald Reagan and Speaker — Democratic Speaker Tip O’Neill. But the basic structure is sound.""By 2030 the amount Social Security pays out will exceed the tax revenue coming in. So in about 20 years the program will not be able to pay for itself through the payroll tax that’s we all pay in."

Link is to the GOP website, but their article lists the links to the obligatory "fact checking" websites. Anyway - yawn. They're politicians. They were both full of horse hockey last night. As I've said before... What everyone is considering (ex post facto) the Romney lies or the Obama lies is entirely dependent on the ideology they had going into the debate beforehand. If you're a leftist then the reaction is "Oooooo - that Romney...! What a pack of lies he told! Ooooo!" Same thing the other way around. Nothing new here.

Yay! An arbitrary "the guy I don't like tells a bunch of lies" game. My turn...

Don't have time to reply to all of this, so just grabbing a couple:

#4: Obama: “And that’s why independent studies looking at this said the only way to meet Governor Romney’s pledge of not reducing the deficit — or — or — or not adding to the deficit, is by burdening middle-class families. The average middle-class family with children would pay about $2,000 more.”"Most of the conservative studies argue that Romney’s tax plan would stimulate economic growth, generating additional tax revenue without shifting any of the tax burden to the middle class."

Notice: independent vs conservative studies. If the conservative studies were right we wouldn't have this budget mess right now.

#7: Obama: “Over The Last 30 Months, We’ve Seen 5 Million Jobs In The Private Sector Created.”“After the economy plummeted in late 2007 and throughout 2009, the United States has gained 4.6 million private-sector jobs since the labor market bottomed in February 2010 – or 5.1 million under preliminary revisions released last week that are not part of the official tally by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Still, that’s weak by historical standards. Under President George W. Bush, the private sector also added 5 million jobs in the 30 months after employment hit bottom following the 2001 downturn, and the pace of private-sector gains in the previous two recoveries was far stronger.”

Bush's recovery had 3 advantages:
1. The problem he needed to recover from was much less severe. It was not as global, the credit markets and hosuing markets were not imploding, and there were strong growth areas overseas still to help buy up US goods
2. Recoveries are getting slower and slower as more American manufacturing gets shipped overseas. Obviously, Obama had to deal with about an extra 8 years' worth of slowdown.
3. Bush also ramped up public sector hiring very rapidly, which has a stimulative effect in creating other jobs since more working people means more money to spend. Hundreds of thousands of jobs. By contrast, Obama's recovery has been while the public sector has SHED hundreds of thousands of jobs, which in turn costs other jobs.

Basically, Obama is facing a far worse situation with more factors against him and has basically done as wekll as Bush did in a recovery.

#9: Obama: “Social Security is structurally sound. It’s going to have to be tweaked the way it was by Ronald Reagan and Speaker — Democratic Speaker Tip O’Neill. But the basic structure is sound."
"By 2030 the amount Social Security pays out will exceed the tax revenue coming in. So in about 20 years the program will not be able to pay for itself through the payroll tax that’s we all pay in."

But it will still be there. last estimates I saw is that it will be able to carry on for 50+ years paying out 70% benefits if no other changes are made. not ideal, but not exactly the "OMIGOD IT'S BANKRUPT!" scenario people are painting in order to get drastic changes made.

I'm having trouble following your complaint. If billions of dollars were budgeted annually and being spent but are no longer needed to be spent, then spending half of it on desperately needed reinvestment and letting the other half go unspent to reduce the deficit seems like a balanced course of action to me. You make some progress on deficit reduction while building up some of the things you need.

My complaint is counting money we're currently borrowing as 'saved' to use for something else. It's a fun way of saying, "We're ending the wars we're currently financing through deficit spending. We're then going to do a bunch more deficit spending to 'invest in America'."

You are free to think it's a good idea or a bad idea, but call it what it is. It isn't a savings.

That's where the Medicare 'lie' comes into play. We're cutting costs by 716$ billion over ten years, which would theoretically extend the trust fund, but that 'money' can be 'borrowed' by Obamacare. So, essentially, like the SS Trust Fund, there will be technically $716 billion more money in there in 10 years than as of current, but in reality, there will just be a big stack of Obamacare IOU's.

And, like I said, we're 'saving' the money simply by cutting/freezing payouts- so our seniors will technically have Medicare 'coverage'- they just might not have any doctors willing to see them.

I'm just sad, not for myself. But for the poor kids that Mitt will throw into the streets by cutting public education. We are fighting for the very lifes of the future of the kids. And the oil will destroy and taint our resources.

I'm just sad, not for myself. But for the poor kids that Mitt will throw into the streets by cutting public education. We are fighting for the very lifes of the future of the kids. And the oil will destroy and taint our resources.

Kids will not be thrown into the streets. At worst they will be put into overcrowded classrooms.

I get that you are passionate and "bleed blue" as you said -- but you have got to realize these over-the-top statements don't do much for discussion and really undermine your credibility right? It's the same thing as when the right posters go all "where's his birth certificate? lululul"

I'm not, as I haven't 'seen' the evidence for either engagement. In both cases, we're functioning on degrees of likelihood. You can't base the 'rightness' of the evidence on the result.

When results are success and a war, you really can.

Originally Posted by bergmann620

The 'evidence' (read: assumptions based on prior knowledge), says that the Lakers stand a good chance to win the championship next year. Them winning or loosing doesn't retroactively affect the quality of those prognostications.

Evidence is the knowledge that assumptions are based on. What you think evidence is, mostley likely means speculation. Because it's speculators that are predicting a Laker championship, not evidence. There is no evidence that the team will work, only speculation.

Kids will not be thrown into the streets. At worst they will be put into overcrowded classrooms.

I get that you are passionate and "bleed blue" as you said -- but you have got to realize these over-the-top statements don't do much for discussion and really undermine your credibility right? It's the same thing as when the right posters go all "where's his birth certificate? lululul"

Appeals to emotion tend to turn me off because the reality is quite different.

Just like Obama isn't going to destroy America in the second term and implement Sharia law, Romney will not round up all the poor and kill them and throw our children into the streets.

Now, will Romney's policies result in a continuation of declining educational standards in the US? Quite possibly...but that requires a more data backed argument than "think of the childreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeen"

I'm just sad, not for myself. But for the poor kids that Mitt will throw into the streets by cutting public education. We are fighting for the very lifes of the future of the kids. And the oil will destroy and taint our resources.

I am a cancer and my that is my water sign. I am bound by emotion and I am sorry if that bothers you.

What bothers me about it, is not the emotion of it, but the same thing that bothers me when people claim Obama is out to destroy America. It is not emotion, but baseless hysteria. It represents the worst of polotics.